govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-04388-0

DIALECT, LLC, 
GOOGLE, LLC, 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE 
Plaintiff, 
V. 
C.A. No. 23-378-GBW 
Defendant. 
MEMORANDUM ORDER 
Before the Court is Defendant Google LLC's ("Google") Motion to Transfer Venue to the 
Northern District of California (the "Motion ," see D.I. 22), which is opposed by Plaintiff Dialect 
LLC ("Dialect"). See D.I. 27. For the reasons explained below, Defendant 's Motion is 
GRANTED. 
I. LEGAL ST AND ARD 
Section 1404(a) provides that, "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the 
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division 
where it might have been brought .... " 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Courts in the Third Circuit evaluate 
a motion to transfer under the factors outlined in Jumara v. State Farm Insurance, 55 F.3d 873, 
879-80 (3d Cir. 1995). See In re: Howmedica Osteonics Corp, 867 F.3d 390, 402 (3d Cir. 2017) 
( citing Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80). The movant has the burden to establish that the interests favor 
transfer. See Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp., 126 F. Supp. 3d 
430, 436 (D. Del. 2015) (quoting Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir.1970)) 
(citing Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879). 
The District Court must first decide whether the case could have been brought in the district 
to which the movant wishes to transfer. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 878. If venue would have been proper 
1 
Case 3:24-cv-04388-JSC     Document 32     Filed 03/28/24     Page 1 of 8
in that district, the court then weighs whether the public and private interest factors favor transfer, 
keeping in mind that "' plaintiff's choice of venue should not be lightly disturbed."' Id. at 879 
( citations omitted). The private interest factors to consider include: 
[1] plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice; [2] the 
defendant's preference; (3] whether the claim arose elsewhere; [ 4] the convenience 
of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; [5] the 
convenience of the witnesses-but only to the extent that the witnesses may 
actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and [6] the location of books and 
records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the 
alternative forum). 
The public interests[] include □ : [7] the enforceability of the judgment; [8] practical 
considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; [9] the 
relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; 
(10] the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; (11] the public 
policies of the fora; and (12] the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable 
state law in diversity cases. 
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80 (citations omitted). "It is black letter law that a plaintiffs choice of a 
proper forum is a paramount consideration in any determination of a transfer request, and that 
choice should not be lightly disturbed." Shutte , 431 F.2d at 25 (cleaned up); see Ceradyne, Inc. v. 
RLI Ins. Co., 2021 WL 3145171, at *4 (D. Del. July 26, 2021). While the plaintiff's forum choice 
remains "the most important factor[,]" other factors will influence the transfer decision. Express 
Mobile, Inc. v. Web.com Grp., Inc., 2020 WL 3971776, at *2 (D. Del. July 14, 2020). "Thus, . . . 
when a plaintiff ... has no connection to Delaware ... other than its choice to sue here and its 
Delaware incorporation[,] . .. such a plaintiff's choice ... will not dominate the balancing to the 
same extent as it otherwise might." Id. 
II. DISCUSSION 
Google moves to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern 
District of California. See D.I. 22. Because the Court finds that, on balance, the Jumara factors 
weigh in favor of transferring this case, the Court will grant Google's Motion to Transfer. 
2 
Case 3:24-cv-04388-JSC     Document 32     Filed 03/28/24     Page 2 of 8
The Court must first decide whether the case could have been brought in the Northern 
District of California. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 878. Section 1404(a) provides that "a district court may 
transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought ... . " 
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Venue in a patent action is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which provides 
that an action under the federal patent laws "may be brought in the judicial district where the 
defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular 
and established place of business." Google has submitted a sworn declaration that it is 
heaqquartered in Mountain V~ew, California. D.I.2413 . Dialect does not dispute that Google 
maintains a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of California. Thus, 
"[Plaintiff] could have filed suit in the Northern District of California." Williamson v. Google Inc., 
No. CV 14-216-GMS, 2015 WL 13311284, at *1 (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2015). 
The Court next turns to the private and public interest factors outlined in Jumara.1 
A. Plaintiffs Forum Preference 
Dialect is not at home in Delaware, and therefore its choice is "entitled to less 
deference." See In re Link A Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 
Dialect is incorporated and is headquartered in Texas. D.I. 14 13. The inventors are located in 
Washington State. D.I. 1411 & Ex. 1. Although it does not afford Dialect's choice "paramount 
consideration," the court nonetheless finds that "some degree of heightened deference" is 
warranted. See Ithaca Ventures k.s. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., No. 13-824-GMS, 2014 WL 
1 The parties agree that the enforceability of the judgment and the judges ' familiarity with 
applicable state law are neutral. D.I. 27 at 20. Accordingly, the Court does not address these 
factors. 
3 
Case 3:24-cv-04388-JSC     Document 32     Filed 03/28/24     Page 3 of 8
4829027, at *2-3 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2014) (citing Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22 (3d 
Cir. 1970)). 
B. Defendant's Forum Preference 
Google prefers to litigate in the Northern District of California because it maintains its 
principal place of business in Mountain View, California. D.I. 24, 3. Google has legitimate and 
rational reasons to prefer litigating at home, so its choice is entitled to some but not overriding 
deference. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Altera Corp., 842 F. Supp. 2d 744, 755 (D. Del. 
_2012) ("Under Third Cir~uit law, [a defendant's] pi;-eference for an alternativ~ forum is not given 
the same weight as Plaintiffs preference."). Accordingly, this factor favors transfer. 
C. Whether the Claims Arose Elsewhere 
While this factor is often neutral when the accused infringer operates nationally, the court 
often takes into account where the infringing products originate-i. e., where they are designed, 
developed, manufactured, or marketed. See Ithaca Ventures, 2014 WL 4829027, at *3. Linex 
Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett- Packard Co., No. 11-400-GMS , 2013 WL 105323, at *4 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 
2013). Google primarily designed and developed the accused products in Mountain View, Google 
continues to develop and market the accused products from that location, and no relevant conduct 
is alleged to have taken place in Delaware. D.I. 24, 6. Therefore, the infringement claims have 
"deeper roots" in the Northern District of California than in the District of Delaware. See Linex 
Techs., 2013 WL 105323, at *4. This factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. 
D. The Convenience of the Parties as Indicated by Their Relative Physical and 
Financial Condition 
Google is a multi-billion-dollar Delaware corporation that frequently litigates in this 
District. Any inconvenience to Google is minimal, at best. Nevertheless , given the numerous 
high-level employees whose work would be disrupted by travel to Delaware and the breadth of 
4 
Case 3:24-cv-04388-JSC     Document 32     Filed 03/28/24     Page 4 of 8
accused products in this case, it would be more convenient for Google to litigate in the Northern 
District of California. D.I. 24 ,r 7. On the other hand, Dialect is in Texas and will be required to 
travel regardless of where this action takes place. Dialect has filed cases in the Eastern District of 
Virginia and the Eastern District of Texas. D.I. 25, Exs. 1 & 2. Dialect can hardly complain about 
the costs of travel when it has voluntarily spread its cases around the country. Dialect has provided 
no facts supporting convenience in the District of Delaware, beyond the presumption that 
Plaintiffs forum choice is convenient. While Dialect's financial resources are unlikely to compare 
to Google's , the Coll;li finds that litigation in ~e Northern District of ~alifornia would be more . 
convenient for the parties. Accordingly, this factor slightly favors transfer. 
E. The Convenience of Witnesses 
This factor favors transfer. Under Third Circuit law, the district court is to consider the 
convenience of witnesses "only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for 
trial in one of the fora." Jumara , 55 F.3d at 879; see also Smart Audio Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 
910 F. Supp. 2d 718, 732 (D. Del. 2012) (noting that this factor applies only insofar as "a witness 
actually will refuse to testify absent a subpoena"). Notably, party witnesses or witnesses who are 
employed by a party carry no weight as each party is able and, indeed, obligated to procure the 
attendance of its own employees for trial. See MEC Res., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 269 F. Supp. 3d 218, 
226 (D. Del. 2017). 
Google has identified sixteen non-party witnesses outside of Google's control: twelve 
inventors of the Asserted Patents (all in Washington State), two inventors of significant prior art 
systems located in the Northern District of California, and two former Google employees located 
in the Northern District of California who allegedly communicated with the inventors' company 
in 2008-2012. D.I. 25 ,r,r 5-8. Four of those witnesses are within the subpoena power of the 
5 
Case 3:24-cv-04388-JSC     Document 32     Filed 03/28/24     Page 5 of 8
Northern District of California but not the District of Delaware. Given these witnesses have no 
current relationship with Google is sufficient to provide "some reason to believe that they would 
refuse to testify." Williamson v. Google Inc., No. CV 14-216-GMS, 2015 WL 13311284, at *2 
(D. Del. Mar. 2, 2015) ("Google need not prove that its identified witnesses may actually be 
unavailable for trial in Delaware. It is enough that likely witnesses reside beyond the court's 
subpoena power and that there is reason to believe that those witnesses will refuse to testify absent 
subpoena power.") (internal quotations omitted). For the inventors living in Washington, while 
they are not withjn the subpoena power of.either district, trial in No~ern California would l~ely 
be significantly more convenient than trial in Delaware. Thus, this factor favors transfer. 
F. The Location of Books and Records 
The location of relevant documents favors transfer, although this factor is accorded little 
weight. In infringement cases, most of the relevant documents come from the alleged infringer. 
See, e.g., Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Checkpoint Software Techs. Ltd., 797 F. Supp. 2d 472, 485 (D. 
Del. 2011) (citing In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). More relevant 
documents are likely present at Google's California headquarters than are present in Delaware. 
D.I. 24 19. While the location of Google's records therefore favors transfer, "technological 
advances ... have significantly reduced the burden of transferring evidence, and, consequently, 
have greatly diminished this as a factor in a transfer analysis." Intel!. Ventures I, 797 F. Supp. 2d 
at 485. Google also has failed to demonstrate that the relevant files and documents "could not be 
produced in the alternative forum." Jumara , 55 F.3d at 879. Thus, although this factor favors 
transfer, it is given little weight. 
6 
Case 3:24-cv-04388-JSC     Document 32     Filed 03/28/24     Page 6 of 8
G. Practical Considerations 
The only public cost that either party identifies is the location of non-party witnesses, which 
is redundant with the Court's analysis of travel costs under the "convenience of witnesses" factor. 
See Wiremed Tech LLC v. Adobe Inc., C.A. No. 18-1066, 2019 WL 2250643, at *5 (D. Del. May 
24, 2019) (refusing to "double-count" arguments as to convenience of witnesses under the practical 
considerations factor). Accordingly, there is no broader public benefit to litigating in the District 
of Delaware versus the Northern District of California. Thus, this factor is neutral. 
H. . Relative Administrati,ve Difficulties Due to C~urt Congestion 
This factor favors transfer. According to the most recent data provided by the United States 
Courts, the weighted case filings per active judgeship in this District between April 1, 2022 and 
March 31, 2023 were 741. See US. District Courts-Combined Civil and Criminal Federal Court 
Management Statistics (March 31, 2023), Admin. Off. Of The U.S. Cts., 
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data _tables/fems_ na _ distprofile0331.2023 .pdf. By 
comparison, the weighted case filings per active judgeship in the Northern District of California 
for that period were 555, while the national weighted case filings per active judgeship was 579. 
Id. The patent case load disparity is also substantial: there are currently 794 pending patent cases 
in the District of Delaware, compared to 251 in the Northern District of California. These 794 
patent cases are distributed across four (4) active Article III judges, one (1) senior judge , and five 
(5) magistrate judges, as compared to the Northern District of California's fourteen (14) active 
Article III judges, ten (10) senior judges , and thirteen (13) magistrate judges. Accordingly, this 
factor weighs in favor of transfer. Cf Allen Med. Sys., Inc. v. Mizuho Orthopedic Sys., Inc., 2022 
WL 1046258, at *3 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2022) (finding that the court congestion factor supported 
transferring a patent infringement action to the Northern District of California). 
7 
Case 3:24-cv-04388-JSC     Document 32     Filed 03/28/24     Page 7 of 8
I. Local Interest in Deciding Local Controversies at Home 
The local interest factor in patent cases is typically neutral because "patent issues do not 
give rise to a local controversy or implicate local interests." Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. 
Checkpoint Software Techs. Ltd., 797 F. Supp. 2d 472, 486 (D. Del. 2011). The Court is not 
convinced that either district has a local interest in this case. 
J. Public Policies of the Fora 
This factor is neutral, as there is no reason to believe that states would apply differing 
public policy considerations in th~ application of federal pC;itent law. Dermansky v. foung Turks 
Inc., 2023 WL 4351340, at *2 (D. Del. July 5, 2023). 
K. Summary of Jumara Factors 
In sum, of the twelve Jumara factors, six weigh in favor of transfer, one weighs against 
transfer, and five are neutral. Considered in their totality, the factors weigh strongly in favor of 
transferring this action to the Northern District of California. Thus, a transfer of the case is 
warranted under§ 1404(a). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the above reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue of this case 
to the Northern District of California. 
Therefore, at Wilmington this 28th day of March 2024, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue (D.I. 22) is GRANTED. 
8 
GORYB. WILLIAMS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 3:24-cv-04388-JSC     Document 32     Filed 03/28/24     Page 8 of 8

Passage view · GavelSight